Wednesday, September 24, 2014

The key to a successful informal walkthrough program is
ensuring for a high level of reliability among observers relating to a
pre-defined rubric or set of look-fors. In the H.E.A.T. Walkthrough model, each
of the categories (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic
connections, Technology use) includes a specific rubric to gauge the level of
H.E.A.T. applied to student learning.

One category in particular, Authentic Connections, includes
a graduated set of statements that describes the degree of real world
connections used during a lesson episode.Since reliability is the “bread and butter” of informal classroom visits,
let’s examine this element of H.E.A.T. in greater detail.

Commentary: There is no documented lesson plan and/or
written/verbal objectives

to determine any degree of
relevancy of the current lesson episode. Students are

unsure what they are learning or
why they are learning the content.

2The learning experience provides no real world application, or
represents a group

of
connected activities

Commentary:Students are unable to make any practical or
real world connections or

ascertain any common thread or
theme linking one learning activity to the next.

3. The learning experience provides
limited real world relevanceCommentary: The teacher as opposed to the
students is the one making, sharing, or modeling how the learning experience(s)
relates to the real world.

4. The learning experience provides
extensive real world relevanceCommentary: Two way interactions among
the students and/or the teacher and the students provide an open forum for all
parties to make, share, or model how the learning experience(s) relates to the
real world.

5. The learning experience provides
real world relevance and opportunity for students to apply their learning to a
real world situationCommentary: Students are not just talking
about real world connections, but are actively applying their learning to a
real world context involving the transfer of skills and knowledge to a new and
unique situation.

• The learning experience is directly
relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond
the classroom that directly impacts the studentsCommentary: Students are self-motivated
to apply their learning to a real world problem or challenge that impacts them
personally involving themselves, their family, their local neighborhood, and/or
the larger global community.

Rating the
category, Authentic Connections, accurately and consistently along with other
elements of H.E.A.T. is critical to generating reliable data that directly
impacts the quality of professional development planning system-wide leading to
ongoing continuous improvement.

Monday, September 15, 2014

The Danielson Framework for Teaching includes Designing
Coherent Instruction as one of the categories within Domain 1: Planning and Preparation.Critical look-fors such as standards-based
instruction, differentiation, interdisciplinary connections, and student choice
collectively define coherent instruction.

In the H.E.A.T.®/Danielson Evaluation Rubric, the degree of
student choice embedded in the curriculum planning process represents the line
of demarcation between a teacher
evaluation rating of Proficient and Distinguished.
What precisely defines student choice? In the planning process, student choice refers
to students assuming an active role in their own learning by providing them
with increased control, decision-making, and personal responsibility of the
content, process, and/or product in the curriculum decision-making cycle.

How can teachers promote greater student choice or student-directed learning when planning “coherent instruction?”Provided below is a small sampling of
strategies.

PROMOTING
STUDENT-DIRECTED LEARNING BY CONTENT:

Providing students
with sub-discussion topic options using Socratic seminars

Allowing students
to self-select their own topics for discussion

PROMOTING
STUDENT-DIRECTED LEARNING BY PROCESS:

Providing opportunities for students to
arrive at self-drawn conclusions or generalizations within cooperative or
collaborative learning groups

Emphasizing student-generated questions that enable
the learners to analyze, synthesize, or evaluate

As with any formalized teacher evaluation system, performing
at a higher level in one category frequently elevates the rating of other
categories. In the H.E.A.T.®/Danielson
Evaluation Rubric, performing at the Distinguished level within
the Domain 1 category, Designing Coherent Instruction, will also increase the
rating level of the companion Domain 1
categories Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Designing Student
Assessments; the Domain 2 category Establishing a Culture for Learning; and the
Domain 3 categories Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques, Engaging
Students in Learning, Using Assessment in Instruction, and Demonstrating
Flexibility and Responsiveness.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

A 2011 article in Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/professional-development/)
provides a crisp summary of the current status of professional development
among our nation’s schools. According to the article, one-shot workshops have
gradually given way to more sustained professional development ranging from onsite peer observations and classroom-based coaches to inquiry teams (alias
professional learning communities) and lesson studies. Regrettably, the one variable determining the
success or failure of most professional development efforts, student results,
has offered little empirical evidence.

Using the H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning,Authentic connections, Technology use) Framework provides an alternative schema
for evaluating the merits of professional development interventions impacting
the teaching and learning process.Each
of the dimensions of H.E.A.T. yields an empirically-validated set of “look-fors”
in which to gauge changes in instructional practices and their subsequent
impact on student learning. Creating an action research study, for example, to
assess changes in the amount of H.E.A.T. in student learning using data
collected throughout the school year can provide a practical way of quantifying
the impact of any professional development opportunity on the level of teaching
innovation in the classroom.

As a conceptual model, H.E.A.T. represents Student Output
while LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) represents Teacher Input.The LoTi framework has been the subject of over
100 research studies and dissertations worldwide primarily investigating the impact of professional development on teaching innovation in the classroom.Using one or both of these matrices to
quantify your professional development results can lead to systematic and
sustained changes affecting continuous improvement at
all levels of the curriculum decision-making ladder.